Permanently deletes a client by UUID when no invoices or documents exist. Use it to remove eligible clients while preventing deletion of records with linked invoices or documents.
Permanently delete a client by UUID. Clients with existing invoices or documents cannot be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Client UUID to delete | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by stressing permanence and naming the blocking dependency (invoices/documents) that causes refusal. It does not describe the error behaviour or what happens to linked records, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive action is front-loaded and the failure condition follows immediately. Every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is deleted, how it is identified, and the blocking condition. It stops short of describing the failure response or the remediation path, which would fully round it out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description does not need to restate them. It mentions the UUID role implicitly but adds nothing about the companyId override or UUID format, leaving this at the baseline for a fully documented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a client by UUID'), so the agent knows exactly what is affected and how it is addressed. It does not name a sibling such as clients_bulk_delete, so the single-vs-bulk distinction must be inferred from 'by UUID'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The precondition 'Clients with existing invoices or documents cannot be deleted' usefully implies when the call will fail, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g. clients_bulk_delete for many records, or removing dependent documents first). Usage is therefore implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.